Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

PULLMAN'S PALACE CAR COMPANY v. HAYWARD.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


decided: May 25, 1891.

PULLMAN'S PALACE CAR COMPANY
v.
HAYWARD.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS.

Author: Gray

[ 141 U.S. Page 37]

 MR. JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a bill in equity by Pullman's Palace Car Company, a corporation of Illinois, and having its place of business and its principal office in that State, against the treasurers of fifty counties in Kansas, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Company and eight other railroad companies, corporations of Kansas, the Missouri Pacific Railway Company, a corporation of Missouri, and the Union Pacific Railroad Company, "a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the United States of America, and a resident and citizen of the State of Nebraska," to restrain the collection of a tax assessed in 1885 and 1886, by the board of railroad assessors of the State of Kansas, to the said railroad corporations, upon sleeping cars, dining-room cars and parlor cars, owned by the plaintiff, and by it let to those corporations, and employed exclusively in interstate commerce; and apportioned among the counties aforesaid according to the mileage of the railroads in each county; and levied accordingly in those counties; and all which taxes were assessed, apportioned and levied under the Compiled Laws of Kansas of 1885, c. 107, art. 7, the material parts of which are copied in the margin.*fn1

[ 141 U.S. Page 38]

     A demurrer filed by the county treasurers was sustained, and a final decree entered dismissing the bill; and the plaintiff appealed to this court.

[ 141 U.S. Page 39]

     This case presents substantially the same questions as the case of Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Pennsylvania, argued with it, and just decided, and is disposed of by the opinion in that case.

Decree affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE FIELD, MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissented, for the reasons stated in their opinion in Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Pennsylvania, ante, 18.

MR. JUSTICE BROWN, not having been a member of the court when this case was argued, took no part in its decision.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.